Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA gets discussed on Slashdot from time to time, usually negatively. Have you ever wondered about the TSA screeners' perspective? Taking Sense Away is a blog, allegedly written by a former TSA screener, offering insider perspectives on TSA topics. For example, there's the Insider's TSA Dictionary, whose entries are frequently about the code screeners use to discuss attractive female passengers (like 'Code Red,' 'Fanny Pack,' and 'Hotel Bravo'). Another posting explains what goes on in private screening rooms, which the author claims is nothing compared to screener conduct in backscatter image operator rooms. Apparently what happens in the IO room stays in the IO room. Today's posting covers how TSA employees feel about working for 'a despised agency'. For many the answer is that they hate working for 'the laughing stock of America's security apparatus,' try to hide that they work for TSA, and want to transfer almost anywhere else ASAP."

Unfortunately, though, the people who are ashamed are for the most part not really in any position to do anything about it. They're the low-paid extras hired to act in the security theater, not the playwright, production company, or theater owner...

I suspect that the beancounters in airlines are the ultimate cause of the financial issues of US airlines. Travelling by air has become much less pleasant than it was, what with the lack of food, extra fees, less legroom, etc.. On a recent trip to Asia, it was clear that the standard of service on Asian airlines is much better: hot food provided free on short flights, baggage limits applied loosely, more attentive flight attendants, etc..

I think that the beancounters think that the unpleasantness from security and all the other nickel and dime changes affect travellers on all airlines equally, which is true, but the real problem is that the number of air travellers has dropped. Perhaps if travelling by air were more pleasant, more people would travel.

The airlines should lobby to make security less intrusive and focus on real threats, followed by providing better service on-board.

This exactly. It's a free market, and the market gets what it wants - cheap airfare. Too cheap, really - the airlines operate on razor-thin margins, can't pay their indirect costs (pensions, maintenance on aging airplanes) and keep going bankrupt to shed costs. The majority of us consumers get the cheap fares we want, but we pay the collateral cost of terrible service. (Southwest is the exception that proves the rule - they're always profitable, even on low fares, but have only a single aircraft fleet to maintain and are staunchly anti-union so they pay lower salaries/benefits. And I would argue that their service is still pretty crappy, even if they smile more while handing you the tiny bag of pretzels.)

This being a free market, you can pay more and get better service, by flying first class. But these days, the majority of flyers in the first class cabin (occasionally including me) are there because we're frequent flyers, not because we paid for it.So at least in the US, first class doesn't bring in enough revenue to justify the type of service you get in first class on Cathay, Lufthansa, etc.

So I think the bottom line is that the terrible quality of a flying experience in the US today is a direct result of the market getting what it wants. Everything else is an unintended but natural consequence.

Oh yes, hasn't it just. I remember a couple of years ago I was going to Beijing, from London. I always choose the cheapest flight, so this time it was Aeroflot - yes, THAT Aeroflot - and then the weather turned bad (almost an inch of snow, woooo, but that is enough to cause major disruptions in UK). My flight was cancelled, and when I finally got on the way, it was on an Aeroflot plane apparently built in the sixties.

And that is where it turned weird: it was miles better than any modern airline. Leather on

That's where we are with the TSA. We need to separate threat assessment from implementation, or else the people who want to build their budgets and bureaucratic empires will "identify" hijacking dangers from nutrias and demand $250K each to buy magic anti-nutria rocks from companies that pay them "consulting" fees.

One wonders what would happen if an ad-hoc, "name and shame" reputation network were to identify TSA agents everywhere they went. It's easy to imagine the near-universal environment of hate stares, extreme rudeness and occasional violence from victims of the TSA's Orwellian tactics putting direct pressure on TSA employees themselves to drastically reform their arrogant policies.

One wonders what would happen if an ad-hoc, "name and shame" reputation network were to identify TSA agents everywhere they went. It's easy to imagine the near-universal environment of hate stares, extreme rudeness and occasional violence from victims of the TSA's Orwellian tactics putting direct pressure on TSA employees themselves to drastically reform their arrogant policies.

That will just weed out the thin-skinned ones and leave the psychopathic "I love the TSA!" types. The ones who relish the power given to them. And being named just makes them "famous" and even prouder.

It's just like police officers - it's easy to say "we need to increase the number of officers by 50", but quite a lot harder to actually do so (finding the right people is very difficult, and it's a rather thankless job that doesn't pay that well for the risks). So the good people don't generally go into policing, and since you need 50 officers, you lower the bar of entry until the bottom-of-the-barrel folks get in. Which is what we have now - people who'll gladly violate your privacy and screw you over because they've got the power to do so.

The more rational among them say "screw it" and quit, leaving a position open for someone else who wants to be "powerful" to join the ranks.

You would probably be charged with a federal crime for threatening a federal employee.

As Tlhlngan says, it would just further the selection pressure to bad people. It's like scientists who go and work for banks as quants. you basically lose your science credibility, but fuck it you get easily double the pay, so you don't care anymore. And you could make the same argument about banks 'you work as one of those greedy bastards? Ewwww...' and yet they wear their MBAs Business consultant and financial manag

It's like scientists who go and work for banks as quants. you basically lose your science credibility, but fuck it you get easily double the pay, so you don't care anymore.

Why would they lose their science credibility? Productive applications of scientific ideas should be the primary basis for science credibility not hiding in an ivory tower. And yes, I'm not a big fan of science for science's sake.

Sure, I'm aware that a lot of these businesses hire people for the prestige of the degree not the knowledge or experience that the employee might have to offer. But colleges often operate that way as well.

And you could make the same argument about banks 'you work as one of those greedy bastards? Ewwww...' and yet they wear their MBAs Business consultant and financial manager titles with pride, oblivious to how stupid they look to anyone with a brain.

Reminds me of just about everywhere I've ever worked, including several un

If you want to harass someone, get to the root cause: the politicians who created the TSA and who approve, even demand, its invasive practices. Blaming the TSA employee for the abusive system is like blaming a hospital orderly for the high costs of health care.

Blaming the TSA employee for the abusive system is like blaming a hospital orderly for the high costs of health care.

This is not an appropriate analogy at all. Regardless of the cost and efficiency of healthcare, the hospital orderly is still trying to help you. The same is not true for the TSA employee. They, as individuals, have made a choice to take a job that they know in advance will be violating your rights. While I agree that we should also be blaming, writing and harassing the politicians who implemented these programs in the first place, but the TSA employees should not be immune from any criticism and grief that comes their way..

I don't really travel that much, but I have encountered TSA two or four times a year for most years since they've existed.

Some are friendly and as helpful as they are allowed to be. Others are clearly just tired of their job but doing it. Just like any other job.

If you read the blog in the summary, the author talks about letting little stuff go (and thereby breaking the rules) when it makes no sense. Like not confiscating the swiss army knife in the airline pilot's bag, or making up excuses

It is hard to "demand" invasive practices if you can not find any one will to do them. Furthermore, as to the idea that the wrong employees will be the ones who stay, I say let them then sew the TSA for every time their employees get out of line. We the people have the power to fix this problem, but we are too cowardly and affraid of our own government.:(

Broadly speaking I think the public understands there's a role for a TSA. They just think the TSA as implemented actually does that on top of all of the stupid things they do, rather than being almost exclusive a collection of stupid things.

I can see why the answers are favorable, they don't ask the right questions.

Do you think that the TSA has gone overboard and needs to scale back some of their policies?

Do you approve of having a nude image of yourself displayed for complete strangers?

Do you think that the TSA's policies on liquids is irrational?

etc...

You ask

How effective do you think the TSA's procedures are at preventing acts of terrorism on U.S. airplanes?

Well, they are effective, but that is not the issue. The procedures that the Israeli use are more effective, but less intrusive.

It's like there is a complaint about bullshit in McDonald's burgers, so they put out a poll that asks about how fast you get your burger, and since no one can complain about the speed they get their burger the poll results are positive.

The issue is we need to get the bullshit out of the TSA, what they scored positively in the polls doesn't need to change, what needs to change is what was not asked in the polls.

Actually it's pretty easy to say it. They have never thwarted an attack. Ever. Their fancy imaging machines don't actually work to detect explosives. Or really much of anything else. Certainly no better than a metal detector. There is nothing they are doing now that would stop a terrorist with an IQ above 60.

The only procedures in place now that would have thwarted the 9/11 plot are the locked and presumably reinforced cockpit doors, the realization of the passengers that if they cooperate they will just die anyway (no more highjackings), and maybe the occassional air marshal or armed pilot.

If the TSA were effective you would be seeing alternative targets attacked. Suicide bombs in the security lines themselves. Buses. Trains. Shopping malls. Sporting events. Nuclear reactors. Water supplies. Subways during rush hour. Possibly simultaneously. There are lots of targets other than aviation that could have been attacked if the terrorists wanted to and found aviation too difficult now.

None of that has happened because there just aren't any serious terrorists targeting the US at the moment. If you do the research you'll find that what is called "Al Queda" may not even actually exist. It was just a small number of guys who were pissed off at the US. Most of them either died in the 9/11 attacks or feel that 9/11 was sufficient payback and more attacks are not a priority at the moment. Who knows. All we know is that for whatever reason no terrorist organizations have targeted the US since 9/11. Keep in mind that there weren't many before 9/11 either.

If you are trying to argue that nuclear weapons are more or less pointless 99.99999% of the time I would agree with you. I don't think we can credit nuclear weapons for preventing a Soviet attack against the US. I don't think the Soviets had any real interest in launching nukes at us. It would have been utterly pointless. If the Soviets wanted to attack us they could have done so the usual way. The Soviets didn't launch nukes at us for the same reason that they didn't launch them against Afghanistan despite

I assume the reasons the Soviet Union didn't use nukes on Afghanistan that the world opinion fallout would have been bad (and their contest with the free world included trying to convince people the Soviet Union wasn't evil), and that nukes wouldn't have provided much tactical advantage in the guerilla style war they were facing anyway. The Afghans didn't control any industrialized cities whose destruction would help the war effort.

Following WWII the Russians had a lot of troops all set to fight. They

I find the data extremely interesting, specifically the effectiveness by age group - it seems that younger people (some of whom have had to deal with the TSA for a significant portion of their lives) are significantly more likely to rate the agency positive compared to an older age group. This was an effect I feared - people get used to anything, and become passive. They don't know how much better air travel could be.

I hope someone can give me some other viewpoint, because it seems to me that the lesson ma

... America wakes up to the fact that measures like intrusive TSA screenings are all about keeping the ordinary American scared of "bad guys", and not about improving security tangibly. There are many countries around the world that don't have the equivalent of the "TSA", yet manage to get through year after year without a major incident. Americans, however, are not supposed to wake up, ever. That's what you get when a handful of ill intentioned lobbyists and gatekeepers control virtually the entire media, most large corporations, and a lot of the government decisions and lawmaking in a country.

While I understand that people have to feed their families and need a job, the people working at the TSA employees get no sympathy from me. Yes, you have every right to hate your job and still do it. But if you are in a "service" industry (or more generally, where you interact with a large number of people), you shouldn't do a shitty job just because you hate it. Most TSA people seem to try the experience unpleasant for passengers. And with a myriad of changing rules, they don't seem to grasp that people will make mistakes. Even a slight deviation from routine gets you the "deluxe" treatment (like the woman carrying a bottle with breast milk being held up for hours).

Case in point - I got a belt that has an buckle that can be removed because I got tired of pulling my belt on and off each time I flew. And I have been through the all types of scanners without a problem in most airports. But one day a new type of scanner seems to have a problem with just the belt "blocking" the view. So rather than just make me remove the whole belt and pass through, they need to do a pat-down that takes much longer. BTW, what happens if my trousers fall down because I need to keep my hands on my head while being scanned? Do I need to register on some type of list somewhere?

No matter how bad a day a waiter is having, he shouldn't spit on food. And TSA employees should treat people like people, not like a piece of meat on a slaughter line.

No matter how bad a day a waiter is having, he shouldn't spit on food. And TSA employees should treat people like people, not like a piece of meat on a slaughter line.

There is a crucial difference in these two examples

If I caught a waiter spitting in someone's food, I could have them fired or worse. Good luck holding a TSA representative responsible for anything, even if they did something bad. It's like you would complain about the waiter spitting in your food, the restaurant association would review your complaint and then inform you that such behavior aligns with restaurant's official policy. And if you press the issue, you could get fined/arrested or even put on the "no eat" list.

If you allow people to behave badly without fear of punishment, you should expect that they will. In part because the people who are attracted to such positions will be more prone to perpetrating abuse.

"TSA gets discussed on Slashdot from time to time, ALWAYS negatively..."

Ftfy. The TSA is always discussed negatively here -- and rightfully so. Take the entire body of evidence as to TSA's effectiveness and procedures, then toss in a million or so anecdotes about TSA's harassment & sheer stupidity, and no wonder they are so looked down on.

Yet another anecdote: in August, I was told I'd have to go through a backscatter or be patted down. I _politely_ said no, I'll opt for the patdown. The fifty-something TSA rent-a-cop (Keystone Kop?), in a half-assed attempt at condescension, "explained" to me that "this machine is not harmful, it uses millimeter wave technology that is the same technology in your cell phone -- it's just as safe as your cell phone." I resisted calling him a dumb fuck, and I _politely_ said that I'll opt for the patdown. He became aggressive and persisted with his bullshit reasoning, and I _politely_ said based on what I've read, I'll opt for the patdown. The dumb fuck yelled at me "WELL EVERYTHING YOU READ IS WRONG!" I know, I know, whilst in the presence of a TSA rent-a-cop I was wrong to say that I actually read. So there you have it, slashdotters, I have solid evidence that everything we've read --and I suppose written-- is WRONG. That fascist fuck will be head of TSA some day. And the patdown is a memory I will always cherish!

Guess who's avoiding airports and instead driving from CO to PA this holiday

I made the mistake of saying "based on what I read...", because as we all know, if one says _anything_ then TSA can haul you away; I should'nt have even said that much.

Your mistake was to put your authority up against his authority. Next time use some else's authority - tell them your oncologist told you to avoid all of the scanners. Since your oncologist is not actually present the TSAtard can't win an argument with him no matter what and at worst must argue that he knows better than a doctor with a PhD in cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others [wikipedia.org]
This is what the US is working to. I hope making tsa employees miserable will push things back the other way. We use to make fun of communists and their "show me your papers" paranoia.

If god had meant for man to fly then he wouldn't have created the assholes in the TSA, the thieving baggage handlers, bogus chinese airplane parts and overbooking. I have no desire to ever travel more than 1000 miles from home and I can drive that far in a day. To hell with air travel. I hope they all crash and burn in desolate areas.

The thing is, flying remains the safest way to travel. You are more likely to die in a car crash than by all airplane incidents combined. Trains are next up on the list of safe ways to travel. Cars are near the bottom of the list, next to "bushwacking through a rainforest."

It also helps that flying is faster than other forms of transportation, at least over long distances. That is why the TSA gets away with their program. If you had to go through TSA-style procedures to drive a car, so many people w

And what are the chances that the TSA will now require current and future employees to sign a contract stating that they can never divulge the inner workings of the TSA? A transparent government organization such as the TSA will, of course, want to keep its stellar reputation intact.

That quote by Rahm Emanuel will go down in infamy. It's probably the most brutally honest thing I've ever heard a politician say. And it's exactly why the TSA exists. Post 9/11 much of the American people were in a state of fear - fear stoked by the US government and the media. They WANT you to be afraid so that they can create agencies like the TSA. The TSA is not about guarding against "terrorism" - it's about gaining further control over the American people. Just like the Patriot Act.

Have you ever taken a good look at any of those TSA agents? I mean really taken a look at them? The one's I've seen have this glazed over look that only Federal Government employees seem to possess. That emotionless, heartless, I-don't-give-a-shit, 1,000 mile stare. Want a local version? Try your DMV office. I'm sure you can find plenty there as well. Must be a training ground for TSA drones.

I suspect that very few people actually want to work for the TSA. Some of them probably think I'll just do this for a while and then I'll get a real job. But they get sucked in and before you know it you've got the 1,000 mile stare too. Getting out of public sector was the best move I ever made.

I just think it's awesome that Bruce Schneier got a nod in the TSA dictionary:

Bruce Schneiered: (V, ints) When a passenger uses logic in order to confound and perplex an officer into submission. Ex: “A TSA officer took my Swiss army knife, but let my scissors go. I then asked him wouldn’t it be more dangerous if I were to make my scissors into two blades, or to go into the bathroom on the secure side and sharpen my grandmother’s walking stick with one of the scissor blades into a terror spear. Then after I pointed out that all of our bodies contain a lot more than 3.4 ounces of liquids, the TSA guy got all pissed and asked me if I wanted to fly today. I totally Schneirered his ass.”

Great, now i've images of the TSA preventing the terminal attacks by sending dangerous lions into low earth orbit, all the while wishing they could tell the common man about the important work they do.

Eg, the rate of vehicular related deaths among 3rd world, uncontacted jungle villages is amazingly low. It doesn't mean they are safer drivers, it means nobody drives, so nobody dies while driving.

It's like saying there is no disease, and no starvation on mars. Of course there isn't, nobody lives there. It doesn't mean mars is a utopian paradise.

Rather than looking myopically at "gun related deaths", you should look at overall "deaths by violent crime".

The percentage of those deaths via firearms is a function of availability. The rate of deaths overall by violent crimes is what you are really looking for.

But it doesn't sound as sensational when you say "sure, your chances of being killed in a violent crime are 3x higher, but your chances of being shot are nearly nonexistent!", instead of "almost nobody gets shot here!"

The question to ask is not "do less people get shot", the question to ask is "is there less overall violent crime?"

(This is especially important whe you consider that part of the ascribed deterrent effect [if it exists], is the implication that violent criminals will themselves be more likely to BE shot. As such, if said violent criminals *are* being shot, they will contribute to the "gun related deaths" statistic.)

Maybe it's just that the people in states with high levels of general crime/gangs/drug culture are the ones demanding the right to own guns...it's not surprising there are more murders in those states.

According to wikipedia, the rate of homicide in the US is 4.2/100k people and the rate of gun related homicide is 3.7/100k people. Therefor, 89%ish of US homicides are gun related homicides.

Contrast this with the UK, which has 1.2/100k homicides and 0.04/100k gun related homicides, or 3.3% of homicides are gun related.

Another way to look at this would be to consider the guns per gun related homicide numbers. In the US, there are approximated 89k guns per 100k people, giving a guns per gun-homicide ratio of 24k guns per gun-homicide. Serbia, the #2 country for guns per capita has approximately 58k guns per 100k people, giving them a guns per gun-homicide rate of 93k guns per gun-homicide.

Clearly, in the states we're all about shooting each other, even in comparison to other nations with (roughly, since no one can claim truly similar) similar rates of gun ownership. Put another way, in the US, we have more gun related homicides per capita (by a factor of 4 almost) than most developed countries have in TOTAL homicides.

Full disclosure: I fully suspect that if guns were outlawed here in the US, we would see an alarming rise in knife related crime. I personally think that everyone here is so willing to kill each other because we have so little vacation time. Damned Protestant work ethic!

Its also important to extrapolate out the number of gun related homocides that can't be (grossly) lumped in with "self defense" (this is not an endorsement, btw) situations.

Eg, crook with crowbar breaks into house, homeowner shoots and kills him. The crook is a gun related homocide statistic.

If overall violent crime is high, and firearm ownership is high, barring a social taboo, the number of persons being shot will also be comparably high. (If for no other reason, violent criminals are being shot.)

If anything, the guns per homocide value having such a wide spread is fairly indicative that gun ownership/availability is not the primary controlling variable.

Not saying the USA and our criminal statistics are in any way "a good thing", just that gun ownership and availability is only a contributing factor to the larger problem, which is overall greater criminality.

Because the number weren't quite so easy to get - gun ownership is divided up by Northern Ireland, England & Wales and the Scotland whereas crime isn't. Done very quickly, so there could be some errors:

Honestly, according to the statistics if we could just stop black males (and somewhat hispanic males, black females, and white males) from getting murdered so much then we'd be pretty close to first world European country homicide rates.

We still wouldn't touch them on firearm-related homicides but that would look somewhat better.

Even in England where gun control is massive and they do have decreased gun violence.They also found a way to bring up violent crimes as a whole to 4 times that of the US.So I am guessing that thugs with baseball bats feel safer beating me out of my cash if they know I am not armed.

[citation required] DC has gun laws but a high homicide rate. North Dakota has few laws but a low one. I know Mexico has strict laws that simply don't work.

The reasonable question I would ask is "What is the complete impact of stricter gun laws on crime." You then need to decide what mix of gun deaths, crime, cost, laws and civil liberties you want to go with. Just saying gun death rate reduction is the only acceptable goal is not a reasonable way to consider the whole question.

The reasonable question I would ask is "What is the complete impact of stricter gun laws on crime."

Glad to oblige! Here's a scientific study done by the Australian government to determine the result of the crackdown on firearms possession post-Port Arthur massacre. It's got numbers in it, and the statistical determination is all well laid out for you.

What exactly is this "gun show loophole"? I have gone to many gun shows, and I can tell you first hand that all dealers at gun shows will still require you to do a federal background check just like when you buy a gun at a store. Private citicens might be able to sell you a gun without a background check, but that can happen with or with out a gun show.
As a Texas resident, I can assure you that the opinion of what constitutes a "retarded" state is exactly the oposite here. It is most likely just a cultu

The only thing that that video has to do with gun shows is that it was at gun shows that the "private collectors" sold their guns. Dealers are required to get a federal background check. Private collectors are not required to do a background check before selling a gun. A private collector can sell you a gun with or without a gun show. Meaning that this is not a "gun show" loophole. This is simply the right of a property owner to sell his or her property.

historically, the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution so that if the government was not taking care of the people they could rise up like the American Colonists did against the British.

And keep in mind that the readily available firearms at the time were single-shot muzzleload rifles. I'd really be curious what the founders would think of the 2nd in the semi-auto hi-cap magazine world we live in today?

The founders believed that the citizenry had to be able to protect themselves against their own government. I don't think they would care whether that was done with stone axes and primitive bows and arrows are with x-ray lasers and particle beams. They would certainly believe that if the government had it the citizenry should be able to have it too.

Fidel Castro overthrew Batista with only a small group of armed men. They were able to accomplish that because there were mass defections from the pro-Batista military.

I have no doubt that a sufficiently well prepared group could overthrow the US government. People have this idea that you need F-16s and bombers. You don't. The US government is unlikely to drop bombs on its own cities and towns or even drive tanks through the city streets. Most of the combat would be guys with rifles against guys with rifles. Whoever had more guys with guns would probably win.

But all of this is beside the point. Overthrowing the government was not the only reason the Founders wanted a well-armed citizenry or citizen-soldiers like the MInutemen. It is to defend ourselves and preserve our freedom for any reason at all. It might be a government that has gone full-1984 or it might be a particular branch of the government enforcing some new law. It could be some circumstance that neither of us could even imagine at the moment. The details don't matter because the principle is the same. Self-defense with whatever the standard weapons are at the time is a basic human right. Only a government afraid of its own citizens would try to deny that right.

Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low. Even if you look at say, germany and the UK, who have much higher violent crime rates than the US, their murder rate is much lower.

There should be a TSA, it should try and prevent dangerous shit from getting on aircraft, trains, airports etc. It's not that there shouldn't be a TSA, it's that the TSA as implemented is unlikely to efficiently accomplish any of the broad goals it has.

You're right that stopping the occasional mass shooting is extremely hard. That's actually the wrong target for the US, the real target for the US should be handguns and work from there. Despite the occasional mass shooting the US averages about 40 murders a day, whereas the equivalent rate in the EU would be more like 10.

Japan also has a suicide rate 2-3x times higher than the US. It's a different culture, if you gave everyone in the US a katana I doubt we'd have a seppuku epidemic.

A big part of our high murder rate is the drug war. You can try and take away everything besides rocks and pointy sticks (and fail miserably) but the drug dealers will keep killing each other. Nothing besides complete legalization is going to end it.

But their killing each other only inflates the "death by gun" statistics making it look like the major cities have some sort of major gun problem when it's really just a tool used by people looking to hurt their competition or destitute customer.

There should be a TSA, it should try and prevent dangerous shit from getting on aircraft, trains, airports etc.

OK, let's start with the most dangerous thing commonly brought onto a transportation system: cars. Yes, cars, they kill thousands of travelers each yeah. The automobile lobby likes to point out that plenty of responsible car drivers practice good car safety and don't go around killing people, but the rest of us know how dangerous cars are.

See, the best part about dangerous things is that nobody wants to lose the dangerous things they personally like to own, use, and play with. Like firearms. Like

Japan also has a mafia so powerful it has influence over the government, and while we were telling the English king to go fuck himself, they were living in feudal aristocracy that was utterly submissive and caste-ridden. Even for the supposedly macho samurai, it was considered a point of honor to die like a little bitch for your lord, and to fail him required suicide. They were also the only people allowed to carry weapons and they could and did murder peasants with impunity. (I guess when your lord could a

Right - because as we all know, correlation == causation.
That, or there's a whole fuck-ton of other factors you're discounting, because they don't mesh with your anti-gun agenda.

Being that there is a 'fuck-ton' of other factors, please enumerate them and list your estimated correlation values that we can debate them in a proper fashion. Otherwise, I will have to assume that you simply have a pro-gun agenda and discount your statement as an opinion and disregard it.

Or, we can just go around accusing other posters as having an agenda here all day long without making any real progress in the discussion.

Well, I'd start by actually visiting Japan - the culture there is incredibly different than anything you can find in the US. I mean, just all the judeo-christian crap that we all take for granted here, is just completely absent. And make no doubt - it's not all good either, there's a pernicious racism there and a great deal of misogyny, but you simply cannot look at that culture and assume that you have controlled for its effect in crime.

Off the top of my head, how culture views human life, availability of help for mental distress (ie if someone feels they're going to do something dangerous, can they actually get help without being treated like a murderer), society's view of the mentally ill (will they see you as someone responsible enough to get help for a disease, or 'get this fucking crazy away from me'), how pervasive classism is, quality of life, number of people living in poverty, how poor that poverty actually is, etc.

That's true.

Aside from peoples' rants on here about not being 'free health care in the US for mental problems'....if the person has any sanity left, they do NOT want to seek mental health.

Talk about a serious blot on your record. It can keep you out of many jobs that you might need. Forget a security clearance....but even shy of that, likely hits you on insurance rates, if you can get a loan, etc.

Even if you get better, or it was something temporary....if you ever had to be treated for mental health issues, that shit will follow you around for the rest of your life, just like being branded a sex offender will do.

Yes, look at Switzerland. Where those weapons are in the hands of a well-regulated militia (sound familiar?) as a substitute for a standing army, whose members receive extensive training in weapon safety, and understand that those weapons are for national defense, not to kill whomever they find personally threatening.

I believe it's a coping mechanism. See, people love power, but they hate responsibility. So life is mostly a game of musical chairs / random shuffling of the deck in the attempt to better your position -> does your new job have more power, and less responsibility? Then you win. Does it have less power and more responsibility? Then you lose.

By crying out to their government to 'make those things we don't like' illegal, they place the future responsibility for any failures firmly on their government's back. We all know that the government can't be everywhere, at all times, but that doesn't prevent some people for blaming it for not being so. So, in this case, the power to be f*cking idiots is retained by the people, while the responsibility for their actions is left to their government. A wonderful recipe full of fail.

Think of it as being a war between individual responsibility versus group responsibility. In the former, all power is retained by the individual, but also all responsibility. In the latter, well...how many people here have worked on group projects before? How many would do so again? The point being, in any group, some members will work harder, others will slack. The person representing the group may have more power than others, or less so; responsibility for group actions may be placed on the whole group, or just one person. Being in a group means, typically, giving up some of your power, but, as I pointed out earlier, can be considered a win if more responsibility is offloaded onto others than the power lost.

Of course, modern society, as you have seen, can be a little insane here. There are people out there, earning $7 / hour, on whom all the responsibility for a business is placed, while there are some earning $100,000 / hour, with no responsibility save getting dressed in the morning.

That and, for some odd reason, a fair portion of the human race seems completely unaware that inside each of them is a MacGuyver, that, when pressed into a corner, occasionally pops out to do 'uncertain' things. 'Tis easier to wash a cat than convince a creative human not to strike back at their aggressors, real or imagined.

That and, for some odd reason, a fair portion of the human race seems completely unaware that inside each of them is a MacGuyver, that, when pressed into a corner, occasionally pops out to do 'uncertain' things. 'Tis easier to wash a cat than convince a creative human not to strike back at their aggressors, real or imagined.

Aha, someone finally argued it (not that I read every possible post). Pistols are a weapon of convenience, and a fairly low collateral one at that. If those were not available, some would use bows, crossbows, throwing knives, shivs, multitools, or just a carefully thrown rock. However, they might also use chlorine gas, fuel air explosives, difficult to extinguish incendiaries, anthrax, or other weapons with even less precision.

Blaming an act on the tool chosen is laziness, and the one thing humans have g

Can we please stop trying to turn every Slashdot story discussion into another flamefest over gun control? We've already had two recent stories that addressed the subject directly, and one that was tangentially relevant but still got its comments hijacked. Half of this story comments is already about the same thing. There really isn't any point in rehashing this over and over again every day, unless you're just trolling / flamebaiting.